THE MULUND ENDEAVOUR CHS LIMITED SOM SINHA AND ASSOCIATES vs ALAG PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — CARAP/255/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM020131312026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

13-04-2026

Filing Number

CARAP/13131/2026

Filing Date

15-04-2026

Registration No

CARAP/255/2026

Registration Date

22-05-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

Bench Type

Single

Category

ARBITRATION ( 4 )

Sub-Category

APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11

Petitioner(s)

THE MULUND ENDEAVOUR CHS LIMITED SOM SINHA AND ASSOCIATES

Respondent(s)

ALAG PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court granted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Mr. Rohan Kelkar as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Mulund Endeavour CHS Limited and Alag Property and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. arising from their Development Agreements dated 2 July 2016 and 30 September 2019. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, and the court directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator for procedural directions, with arbitrator fees to be shared equally between the parties and subject to the final award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court granted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Mr. Rohan Kelkar as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Mulund Endeavour CHS Limited and Alag Property and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. arising from their Development Agreements dated 2 July 2016 and 30 September 2019. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, and the court directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator for procedural directions, with arbitrator fees to be shared equally between the parties and subject to the final award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case